Bret W. Ogilvie v. CARRON COBB, Manager;

09-15631Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit27.12.2010

Gesamter Gesetzestext

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRET W. OGILVIE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
MERRY C. OGILVIE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CARRON COBB, Manager; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-15631
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00269-BES-
RAM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Brian E. Sandoval, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-15631 2
Bret W. Ogilvie appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action challenging the Internal Revenue Service’s (“IRS”) notices of levy and
federal tax lien, and alleging wrongful levy and garnishment of wages. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Cholla Ready Mix, Inc.
v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the claims against the IRS employees
in their official capacities as barred by sovereign immunity. See Gilbert v.
DaGrossa, 756 F.2d 1455, 1458 (9th Cir. 1985) (“[A] suit against IRS employees
in their official capacity is essentially a suit against the United States.”).
The district court properly dismissed the claims against defendants Cobb and
Klaich Animal Hospital, Ltd. for honoring a federal tax levy because they are
entitled to immunity. See 26 U.S.C. § 6332(e) (those who comply with the levy
are “discharged from any obligation or liability to the delinquent taxpayer and any
other person with respect to such property or rights to property arising from such
surrender or payment”).
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Smith
v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
Ogilvie’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.